Never was a fan of Daylight Saving Time, but knowing that Nate Silver is a proponent gives me additional conviction.

The article is titled I Say Forbidden Things About Sports, and he does! Here are the six actual benefits:

1. To promote physical fitness and healthy living
2. To celebrate the values of sportsmanship and fair play—because these will make athletes better human beings, better citizens, and better participants in their communities.
3. To teach the benefits of unselfish teamwork and counter the intense promotion of selfish individual behavior in society.
4. To show youngsters how to deal with defeat and setbacks (as well as winning)—because they will face these again and again in life.
5. To bond together a community—both among fans and between opponents by the goodwill created via fair competitions.
6. To instill valuable life habits of discipline, hard work, courage, and persistence.

Instead, notes Gioia, the young athletes are taught that:

• Winning is more important than anything.
• There’s no value in losing. Losers get the ridicule and mockery they deserve.
• Maybe you need to play on a team, but rewards will depend on your success and fame as an individual—so always look out for your own selfish interests.
• Healthy living is okay, but don’t let it keep you from clubbing and late-night partying—because those are the perks of the athlete’s life.
• Cheating will enhance all these beneifts (sic!) — just don’t get caught.

How very true. To take NBA, an American sport with which I am the most familiar, you can see it in the large swings in score when the losing team snaps and realizes they can’t win the game and therefore they don’t even try.

Do read the whole thing.

For some light weekend reading, may I suggest this Chris Arnade quartet:

• Why I Walk
• How to Walk (12 miles a day)
• How to Travel
• Why and how to walk 200 miles

The inconsistencies in capitalization are entirely Arnade’s.

Quote of the day is from The Hinternet:

This, then, is the real transformation, of which Jones’s addiction diagnosis is merely a symptom: that absorption, which used to represent a secret inner life, has been sneakily transfigured into a siphon by which our native curiosity is sucked away and sold. Where once we were rapt, now we are gift-wrapped. The text is reading us.

Including this one, if you are reading it on anything other than an RSS client.

Some weekend links, old and new:

• A Case Against the Placebo Effect
• Frank Auerbach and the unexamined life
• The Worst Generation (from the year 2000!)
• Merlin Mann on The Great Discontent (2013!)

Whether it’s on micro.blog, mastodon, bluesky, threads or in your favorite RSS client, thank you for reading!

Judging from the number of new follows BlueSky is becoming a new hub for MDs. So, it was time for a new profile pic. And because I cross-post from micro.blog to BS (which is how I will henceforth call it, just because) this… ugh… skeet will make for an interesting loop.

I am at ACR Convergence all weekend, but here are some quick shots:

• How it went
• Epistemic hygiene
• Maybe Bluesky has “won” (ᔥDave Winer)
• I hated Dubai until I learned about it

I love and hate Maggie Appleton’s website at the same time. I mean, just look at it. But then the last essay went up almost 2 years ago, and “loose, unopinionated notes” come out at a rate of one every other month.

“Digital gardens” may not the best of metaphors. A garden left on its own will keep growing and may turn into something beautiful. A blog without new articles becomes a museum or, worse yet, a mausoleum with its own flesh-eating aliens.

I have been reading Oliver Burkeman’s “Meditations for Mortals”, which builds on many of the concepts first mentioned in “Four Thousand Weeks”. One of them is looking at various aspects of life not as a to-do list that needs completing but as a river you dip in and out of as needed.

One big to-do list that has followed me for more than a decade now has been my ever-growing Instapaper queue. However, the river metaphor didn’t quite work there: the constant flow of a river implies I’d be looking at the newest thing each time I dipped in. But that’s what social media and RSS are for! Dave Winer himself has used the term River of News to describe a type of an RSS aggregator. What, then, to make of Instapaper and what purpose does it serve?

So here is how I’ve been thinking about it: Instapaper (or any other read-it-later service) is where all the hot takes I encounter go to cool down. The Senate of my reading Congress, if you will. And most things I put there will, in fact, turn out to be pieces of misshapen plastic not worth my time. But now and then a masterpiece may come out of the fire that will be worth sharing years hence. So, I really don’t care about the great resignation in academia all that much any more. C.S. Lewis talking about cliques? Yes, please.

Looking at years-old essays and blog posts removes current-event noise from my interpretation. Usually I also can’t remember why I saved an item in the first place. So, the piece will have to stand on its own without the benefit of my knowing that Tyler Cowen, or Cory Doctorow, or whomever else’s link blog I follow had put in a good word about it. Is QAnon destroying the GOP from within? I won’t have to read Ben Sasse’s ten thousand words from 3 years go on it because the answer was clearly “Yes”, and the deed is now done. How does Zeynep Tufekci keep getting the big things right? I don’t have to read the 4-year-old article now since there is a whole book about it (and not the one you think). Etc, etc.

The emerging pattern is that big news pieces in publications like The New York Times Magazine and The Atlantic are the lowest yield, as they either become stale or discredited. Give me a thoughtful Substack newsletter any time! Better yet are items that were old when I saved them, like that C.S. Lewis speech from a few paragraphs up, or this brief remembrance of Paul Feyerabend that ends with a poignant paragraph:

Beneath Feyerabend’s rhetorical antics lurked a deadly serious theme: the human compulsion to find absolute truths, however noble it may be, often culminates in tyranny. Feyerabend attacked science not because he actually believed it was no more valid than astrology or religion. Quite the contrary. He attacked science because he recognized—and was horrified by—science’s vast superiority to other modes of knowledge. His objections to science were moral and political rather than epistemological. He feared that science, precisely because of its enormous power, could become a totalitarian force that crushes all its rivals.

It was written in 2016. Eight years later, we are in for some crushing.